On June 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a design contract with D architect office (hereinafter “D”) on the building of a motor vehicle maintenance shop, and the Defendant also entered into a design and supervision contract with D on the building of a gas station around that time.

However, according to D's design, as the construction cost exceeds the budget, the Plaintiff requested a new design to E(E) of the architect office.

On September 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for construction works with F Co., Ltd. and Motor Vehicle Maintenance Business Center (No. 3.4 billion won for construction works, value-added tax separately), and gas stations (no. 1.3 billion won for construction works, value-added tax separately), respectively, and the contract for the gas stations was determined to do construction works in accordance with D’s design drawings.

After that, D renounced all rights related to design and supervision on October 2014, and E, which concluded with the Plaintiff, took charge of the entire supervision.

The defendant requested a building use inspection on July 2015, and the approval for use was made on August 5, 2015.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Gap 9, Eul 1, 3 through 5, 11, purport of all pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that on behalf of the defendant, the plaintiff entered into a supervision agreement on the entire construction project including the plaintiff's gas station E and the defendant's gas station, and paid KRW 110,00,000,00. Among which, 32,782,00, which correspond to the defendant's share in land is the defendant's share, the plaintiff asserts that he/she seeks a reasonable amount of indemnity to the defendant according to the plaintiff's subrogation, right to claim reimbursement of expenses for office management

The defendant has already paid supervision fees under the design and supervision contract to D.